[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 29, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3510-S3514]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Johnson):
S. 2931. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
exempt complex rehabilitation products and assistive technology
products from the Medicare competitive acquisition program; to the
Committee on Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medicare Access to
Complex Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology Act of 2008. I am
pleased to be joined by my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow.
Today, we unite to ensure access to medical equipment for severely
disabled Medicare beneficiaries who seek to lead independent and
productive lives.
In the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, Congress directed the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to proceed with a durable
medical equipment competitive bidding demonstration project. The
purpose of this demonstration was to determine whether competitive
bidding can be used to provide quality medical equipment at prices
below current Medicare Part B reimbursement rates. The bidding will
result in a new fee schedule for some selected DME services, replacing
Medicare's current fee schedule. In other words, competitive bidding
will change how Medicare covers medical equipment and also determine
which suppliers may participate in providing such equipment to
beneficiaries.
It is critical to note that the Medicare competitive bidding program
was designed to produce cost savings--both for Medicare and for
beneficiaries in the form of lower copayments for medical equipment.
The competitive process of submitting bids to supply particular
services and products would reduce the price Medicare currently
reimburses for these items.
Although competitive bidding may reduce the cost of some health
services, this system will likely prove unworkable in certain
circumstances. For example, many rural areas across the country may not
have the health care infrastructure to support a competitive
acquisition program. Small suppliers who service individuals residing
in areas of low population density may be outbid by larger, distant
providers, leading to limited access to medical equipment for Medicare
beneficiaries living in these locations.
Another unique circumstance for which competitive bidding is
inappropriate regards complex rehabilitation and assistive technology
for individuals with significant and distinctive needs. Under the
competitive acquisition program, thousands of individuals who require
customized medical equipment may be forced to use ill-fitting products
that will inevitably increase discomfort, further limit functional
ability, and may even cause loss of function for these individuals who
seek independence and mobility in their lives.
Let me give an example of how the competitive bidding program will
hamper the ability of Medicare beneficiaries to access necessary
rehabilitative and assistive technology. If a Medicare beneficiary has
been diagnosed with muscular dystrophy and uses a power wheelchair due
to the loss of muscle tone in the body, a wheelchair that is tailored
to the individual is imperative for several reasons. Power wheelchairs
that are not adapted to the particular needs of the individual lead to
more than mere discomfort, but also can further worsening health. For
instance, individuals with muscular dystrophy may have wheelchairs that
allow them to change positioning in order to breathe more comfortably.
In addition, these wheelchairs may also be adapted to accommodate other
necessary medical equipment, such as breathing ventilators. Yet with
Medicare competitive bidding, the process will likely yield more
uniform wheelchairs, leaving severely impaired beneficiaries with
limited options to meet their needs.
Our bill will remove complex rehabilitation and assistive technology
products from the Medicare competitive bidding program. In a program
intended to reduce costs through competition among suppliers providing
medical products, it is simply untenable to include such sophisticated
and personalized equipment. We all agree that we must address Medicare
spending, but restricting access to necessary products for the
beneficiaries that most require them is not the way to approach this
issue--and may in fact increase costs.
I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Stabenow and myself in
supporting the Medicare Access to Complex Rehabilitation and Assistive
Technology Act of 2008 to support Medicare beneficiaries in receiving
the specialized medical equipment they so critically need.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague,
Senator Olympia Snowe, in introducing the Medicare Access to Complex
Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology Act. This legislation will
ensure Medicare beneficiaries who need complex rehabilitation and
assistive technology will continue to receive the highest level of
service and support necessary to maintain their independence. I am also
pleased to be joined by my good friend, Senator Tim Johnson, in this
effort.
Competitive bidding, while well-intentioned, does not work well for
items that must be customized for individuals with complex and
specialized needs. Unlike some of the items being considered by CMS for
competitive bidding, complex rehab technologies are not the sort of
products that are easily interchangeable. For example, individuals with
neuromuscular diseases--such as multiple sclerosis, ALS, cerebral
palsy, or Parkinson's disease--or conditions such as spinal cord
injuries may require specialized services because of the profound and
sometimes progressive nature of these conditions. Patients' access to
assistive technology products for their unique needs could be in
jeopardy.
I am pleased that our legislation has the support of numerous patient
advocacy organizations. As co-chair of the Senate Parkinson's Caucus, I
have seen firsthand how assistive technology can make a difference in
helping a loved one achieve independence over a disease or disability.
The legislation we are introducing today will ensure that the wonders
of medical technology will continue to be available to the Medicare
beneficiaries who need them the most.
______
By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Kohl):
S. 2933. A bill to improve the employability of older Americans; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Conrad and Kohl, I
introduce the Incentives for Older Workers Act of 2008.
The United States is about to experience an unprecedented demographic
shift with the aging of the baby boomer generation. According to the
U.S. Census Bureau, in 1980, individuals age 50 and older represented
26 percent of the population. By 2050, this is expected to rise to 37
percent. In my home State of Oregon, residents age 65 and older are
expected to comprise 25 percent of the State population by 2025. This
will make Oregon the fourth oldest State in the country.
The aging of our population will have a significant impact on many
aspects
[[Page S3511]]
of our society, including our labor market. A 2007 Conference Board
study reports that current retirement trends could create a U.S. labor
shortage of 4.8 million workers in 10 years. According to Dr. Preston
Pulliams of Portland Community College, 53 percent of Oregon businesses
report that it is extremely or very likely that their organization will
face a shortage of qualified workers during the next 5 years as a
result of the retirement of baby boomers.
The Incentives for Older Workers Act will help mitigate the effects
of our aging workforce by providing incentives to older Americans to
stay in the workforce longer, encouraging employers to recruit and
retain older workers, and eliminating barriers to working longer. For
example, the current Work Opportunity Tax Credit allows employers
credits against wages for hiring individuals from one or more of nine
targeted groups, such as recipients of public assistance and high risk
youth. Our bill would extend that credit for employers that hire older
workers.
In addition, Social Security benefits are increased if retirement is
delayed beyond full retirement age. Increases based on delaying
retirement no longer apply when people reach age 70, even if they
continue to delay taking benefits. Our bill would allow people to earn
delayed retirement credits up until age 72, instead of age 70.
To collect, organize and disseminate information on older worker
issues, the bill also would create a National Resource Center on Aging
and the Workforce within the U.S. Department of Labor. This center
would act as a national information clearinghouse on workforce issues,
challenges and solutions for older workers.
The bipartisan Incentives for Older Workers Act will provide seniors
with the flexibility and opportunity to continue working in retirement
if they choose to. I look forward to working with my colleagues to
enact these important reforms. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2933
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Incentives
for Older Workers Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Prohibition of benefit reduction due to phased retirement.
Sec. 3. Allowance of delayed retirement social security credits until
age 72.
Sec. 4. Reduction in social security benefit offset resulting from
certain earnings.
Sec. 5. National Resource Center on Aging and the Workforce.
Sec. 6. Civil service retirement system computation for part-time
service.
Sec. 7. Workforce investment activities for older workers.
Sec. 8. Eligibility of older workers for the work opportunity credit.
Sec. 9. Normal retirement age.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF BENEFIT REDUCTION DUE TO PHASED
RETIREMENT.
(a) Prohibition of Benefit Reduction Due to Phased
Retirement.--
(1) Amendment to the employee retirement income security
act of 1974.--Section 204(b)(1) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1054(b)(1)) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(I)(i) Notwithstanding the preceding subparagraphs, in
the case of a participant who----
``(I) begins a period of phased retirement, and
``(II) was employed on a substantially full-time basis
during the 12-month period preceding the period of phased
retirement,
a defined benefit plan shall be treated as meeting the
requirements of this paragraph with respect to the
participant only if the participant's compensation or average
compensation taken into account under the plan with respect
to the years of service before the period of phased
retirement is not, for purposes of determining the accrued
benefit for such years of service, reduced due to such phased
retirement
``(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, a period of
phased retirement is a period during which an employee is
employed on substantially less than a full-time basis or with
substantially reduced responsibilities, but only if the
period begins after the participant reaches age 50 or has
completed 30 years of service creditable under the plan.''.
(2) Amendment to the internal revenue code of 1986.--
Section 411(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to accrued benefits) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(I) Accrued benefit may not decrease on account of phased
retirement.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding the preceding
subparagraphs, in the case of a participant who--
``(I) begins a period of phased retirement, and
``(II) was employed on a substantially full-time basis
during the 12-month period preceding the period of phased
retirement,
a defined benefit plan shall be treated as meeting the
requirements of this paragraph with respect to the
participant only if the participant's compensation or average
compensation taken into account under the plan with respect
to the years of service before the period of phased
retirement is not, for purposes of determining the accrued
benefit for such years of service, reduced due to such phased
retirement.
``(ii) Period of phased retirement.--For purposes of this
subparagraph, a period of phased retirement is a period
during which an employee is employed on substantially less
than a full-time basis or with substantially reduced
responsibilities, but only if the period begins after the
participant reaches age 50 or has completed 30 years of
service creditable under the plan.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to benefits payable after the date of enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 3. ALLOWANCE OF DELAYED RETIREMENT SOCIAL SECURITY
CREDITS UNTIL AGE 72.
(a) In General.--Paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 202(w)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(w)) are each
amended by striking ``age 70'' and inserting ``age 72''.
(b) Effective Dates.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. REDUCTION IN SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT OFFSET RESULTING
FROM CERTAIN EARNINGS.
(a) In General.--Section 203(f)(3) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(3)) is amended by striking ``in the
case of any individual'' and all that follows through ``in
the case of any other individual''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER ON AGING AND THE WORKFORCE.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Labor shall award a
grant for the establishment and operation of a National
Resource Center on Aging and the Workforce to address issues
on age and the workforce and to collect, organize, and
disseminate information on older workers.
(b) Activities.--The Center established under subsection
(a) shall--
(1) serve as a national information clearinghouse on
workforce issues, challenges, and solutions planning for
older workers that would serve employers, local communities,
and State and local government organizations, as well as
other public and private agencies, including providing for
the cataloging, organization, and summarizing of existing
research, resources, and scholarship relating to older
workforce issues;
(2) identify best or most-promising practices across the
United States that have enjoyed success in productively
engaging older Americans in the workforce;
(3) create toolkits for employers, trade associations,
labor organizations, and non-profit employers that would
feature a series of issue papers outlining specific tasks and
activities for engaging older individuals in select
industries;
(4) distribute information to government planners and
policymakers, employers, organizations representing and
serving older adults, and other appropriate entities through
the establishment of an interactive Internet website, the
publications of articles in periodicals, pamphlets,
brochures, and reports, as well as through national and
international conferences and events; and
(5) provide targeted and ongoing technical assistance to
select units of government, private corporations, and
nonprofit organizations.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be available in each
fiscal year to carry out this section.
SEC. 6. CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM COMPUTATION FOR PART-
TIME SERVICE.
Section 8339(p) of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(3)(A) In the administration of paragraph (1)--
``(i) subparagraph (A) of such paragraph shall apply to any
service performed before, on, or after April 7, 1986;
``(ii) subparagraph (B) of such paragraph shall apply to
all service performed on a part-time or full-time basis on or
after April 7, 1986; and
``(iii) any service performed on a part-time basis before
April 7, 1986, shall be credited as service performed on a
full-time basis.
``(B) This paragraph shall be effective with respect to any
annuity entitlement to which is based on a separation from
service occurring on or after the date of the enactment of
this paragraph.''.
SEC. 7. WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES FOR OLDER WORKERS.
(a) State Boards.--Section 111(b)(1)(C) of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2821(b)(1)(C)) is amended--
[[Page S3512]]
(1) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (viii); and
(3) by inserting after clause (vi) the following:
``(vii) representatives of older individuals, who shall be
representatives from the State agency (as defined in section
102 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3002)) in
the State or recipients of grants under title V of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.) in the State; and''.
(b) Local Boards.--Section 117(b)(2)(A) of such Act (29
U.S.C. 2832(b)(2)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (v), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(vii) representatives of older individuals, who shall be
representatives from an area agency on aging (as defined in
section 102 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
3002)) in the local area or recipients of grants under title
V of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.) in the local area;
and''.
(c) Reservation of Funds for Older Individuals.--Section
134 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 2864) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(f) Reservation for Older Individuals From Funds
Allocated for Adults.--
``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `allocated
funds' means the funds allocated to a local area under
paragraph (2)(A) or (3) of section 133(b).
``(2) Reservation.--The local area shall ensure that 5
percent of the allocated funds that are used to provide
services under subsection (d) or (e) are reserved for
services for older individuals.''.
SEC. 8. ELIGIBILITY OF OLDER WORKERS FOR THE WORK OPPORTUNITY
CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Section 51(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to members of targeted groups) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (H),
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (I)
and inserting ``, or'', and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(J) a qualified older worker.''.
(b) Qualified Older Worker.--Section 51(d) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (11), (12), and (13) as
paragraphs (12), (13), and (14), respectively, and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (10) the following new
paragraph:
``(11) Qualified older worker.--The term `qualified older
worker' means any individual who is certified by the
designated local agency as being an individual who is age 55
or older and whose income is not more than 125 percent of the
poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and
Budget), excluding any income that is unemployment
compensation, a benefit received under title XVI of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), a payment made
to or on behalf of veterans or former members of the Armed
Forces under the laws administered by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, or 25 percent of a benefit received under
title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et
seq.).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made this section shall
apply to amounts paid or incurred after the date of the
enactment of this Act to individuals who begin work for the
employer after such date.
SEC. 9. NORMAL RETIREMENT AGE.
(a) Amendment to Internal Revenue Code of 1986.--Section
411of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Special Rule for Determining Normal Retirement Age
for Certain Existing Defined Benefit Plans.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(8)(A), an
applicable plan shall not be treated as failing to meet any
requirement of this subchapter, or as failing to have a
uniform normal retirement age for purposes of this
subchapter, solely because the plan has adopted the normal
retirement age described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Applicable plan.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `applicable plan' means a
defined benefit plan that, on the date of the introduction of
the Incentives for Older Workers Act, has adopted a normal
retirement age which is the earlier of--
``(i) an age otherwise permitted under subsection
(a)(8)(A), or
``(ii) the age at which a participant completes the number
of years (not less than 30 years) of benefit accrual service
specified by the plan.
A plan shall not fail to be treated as an applicable plan
solely because, as of such date, the normal retirement age
described in the preceding sentence only applied to certain
participants or to certain employers participating in the
plan.
``(B) Expanded application.--If, after the date described
in subparagraph (A), an applicable plan expands the
application of the normal retirement age described in
subparagraph (A) to additional participants or participating
employers, such plan shall also be treated as an applicable
plan with respect to such participants or participating
employers.''.
(b) Amendments to Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974.--Section 204 of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 is amended by redesignating subsection
(k) as subsection (l) and by inserting after subsection (j)
the following new subsection:
``(k) Special Rule for Determining Normal Retirement Age
for Certain Existing Defined Benefit Plans.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of section 3(24), an
applicable plan shall not be treated as failing to meet any
requirement of this title, or as failing to have a uniform
normal retirement age for purposes of this title, solely
because the plan has adopted the normal retirement age
described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Applicable plan.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `applicable plan' means a
defined benefit plan that, on the date of the introduction of
the Incentives for Older Workers Act, has adopted a normal
retirement age which is the earlier of--
``(i) an age otherwise permitted under section 2(24), or
``(ii) the age at which a participant completes the number
of years (not less than 30 years) of benefit accrual service
specified by the plan.
A plan shall not fail to be treated as an applicable plan
solely because, as of such date, the normal retirement age
described in the preceding sentence only applied to certain
participants or to certain employers participating in the
plan.
``(B) Expanded application.--If, after the date described
in subparagraph (A), an applicable plan expands the
application of the normal retirement age described in
subparagraph (A) to additional participants or participating
employers, such plan shall also be treated as an applicable
plan with respect to such participants or participating
employers.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to years beginning before, on, or after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Reed, and Mr.
Schumer):
S. 2935. A bill to prevent the destruction of terrorist and criminal
national instant criminal background check system records; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Preserving
Records of Terrorist and Criminal Transactions, or PROTECT Act of 2008.
I am proud to be joined by cosponsors Senators Feinstein, Levin,
Lieberman, Menendez, Reed, Schumer, and Whitehouse.
In 1994, we passed the Brady Law, which requires criminal background
checks for all guns sold by licensed firearm dealers. In the 14 years
since it was enacted, the Brady law has prevented more than 1.5 million
felons and other dangerous individuals from buying guns. I am proud to
say that more than 150,000 of those denials have been to convicted
domestic abusers because of a law I wrote in 1996.
Every time a Brady background check is conducted, the FBI's National
Instant Criminal Background Check System--or NICS--creates an audit
log. The audit log includes information about the purchaser, the
weapon, and the seller.
The information could be extremely valuable to the FBI. The agency
could use it to help determine whether gun dealers are complying with
the background check requirements, to help law enforcement fight crime
by figuring out whether a criminal has been able to buy a gun, or even
to help prevent terrorist attacks.
Yet, despite this information's value in fighting crime and
terrorism, the FBI destroys the background check data.
In most cases, the audit log is destroyed within 24 hours after the
sale is allowed to go through. That's because every year since 2004, a
rider has been attached to appropriations bills mandating that the FBI
destroy the background check record within 24 hours of allowing the gun
sale to proceed. That means that the purchaser's name, social security
number, and all other personally identifying information are purged
from the system within 24 hours.
Once this information is destroyed, the FBI can no longer run
searches using a person's name. So if a local law enforcement agency
were to call the FBI to see if a criminal on the loose had purchased
any guns recently, the FBI would not be able to search its database
using the suspect's name if the gun was purchased two months, two
weeks, or even two days earlier.
This destruction requirement hinders the FBI's ability to help the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives verify that gun
dealers are conducting background checks properly.
[[Page S3513]]
Before the destruction requirement, ATF could compare the NICS records
to the paper records that gun dealers are required to keep on file to
determine whether the dealers were submitting all the required
information.
The destruction requirement also prevents the FBI from determining
whether a felon, fugitive, or other person who is prohibited from
having a gun was able to purchase one in violation of the law, and to
retrieve guns from people who are prohibited from having them. The FBI
has only three days to conduct background checks, and sometimes
receives information after already approving a sale that the purchaser
was legally prohibited from having a firearm. But without the
background check information at hand, the FBI has no way of retrieving
guns from these dangerous people who never should have been allowed to
purchase them in the first place.
Prior to the 24-hour destruction requirement, the Government
Accountability Office found that over a 6-month period the FBI used
retained Brady background check records to initiate 235 actions to
retrieve illegally possessed guns. According to GAO, 228--97 percent--
of those retrieval actions would not have been possible under a 24-hour
destruction policy. Those are hundreds of guns in the hands of felons,
fugitives and other dangerous people. We have the power to stop them,
and we should use it.
Up until now, I have been talking about dangerous people who are
prohibited from having guns under current federal law, such as felons,
fugitives, and convicted domestic abusers. But there is one category of
very dangerous people who are allowed to purchase firearms under
current federal law-known and suspected terrorists. It is hard to
believe, but nothing in our federal gun laws prevents known and
suspected terrorists from purchasing guns.
And we know that terrorists exploit this Terror Gap in our gun laws.
In a 2005 report that Senator Biden and I requested, GAO found that
during a four-month period in 2004, a total of 44 firearm purchase
attempts were made by known or suspected terrorists. In 35 of those
cases, the FBI authorized the transactions to proceed because FBI field
agents were unable to find any disqualifying information within the
federally prescribed three-day background check period. I have
introduced another bill--the Denying Firearms and Explosives to
Dangerous Terrorists Act S. 1237--to close this Terror Gap, and I urge
my colleagues to support that bill as well.
Not only do our current laws allow terrorists to buy guns, but the
FBI also destroys the background check records from terrorist gun
purchases within 90 days. That means that a joint terrorism task force
conducting a terror investigation over the course of months or even
years cannot call the FBI to find out if the target of the
investigation--someone who is on the terror watch list--purchased
firearms last year.
The PROTECT Act would address both of these record retention problems
by preserving records that are critical to effective background checks,
law enforcement, and terrorism prevention. Specifically, it would:
(1) require the FBI to retain for 10 years all background check
records involving a valid match to a terror watch list; and
(2) require the FBI to retain for at least 180 days all other
background check records.
This is a common-sense public safety measure. At a time when 32
people are murdered as a result of gun violence every day in the United
States and we are fighting against terrorism, the last thing we should
be doing is prematurely destroying a valuable anti-crime and anti-
terrorism tool that we have at our fingertips.
At a Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations
Subcommittee hearing last year, I asked FBI Director Robert Mueller if
he thought that background check records should be retained for more
than 24 hours. He replied, ``[T]here is a substantial argument in my
mind for retaining records for a substantial period of time.'' That's
what this bill would do, and I hope my Senate colleagues will join me
in passing it swiftly.
______
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Burr, Mr. McCain, Mr. Chambliss,
Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Alexander, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr.
Martinez, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins, Mr. Barrasso,
Mr. Domenici, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Isakson, and Mr.
Inhofe):
S. 2938. A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to
improve educational assistance for members of the Armed Forces and
veterans in order to enhance recruitment and retention for the Armed
Forces, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join today with
Senator Lindsey Graham, the Ranking Member of the Personnel
Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator
Richard Burr, the Ranking Member of the Senate Veterans Committee, in
introducing the Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment
Through Education Act. This legislation, which is designed to greatly
enhance veterans' education benefits, is also cosponsored by Senators
Chambliss, Lieberman, Cornyn, Alexander, Hutchison, Martinez, Stevens,
Cochran, Collins, Barrasso, Domenici, Dole, Wicker, and Isakson.
Mr. President, America has an obligation to provide unwavering
support to America's veterans, servicemembers, and retirees. Men and
women who have served their country deserve the best education benefits
we are able to give them, and they deserve to receive them as quickly
as possible. And that is what our legislation is designed to
accomplish.
The Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment Through
Education Act would increase education benefits for servicemembers,
veterans, and members of the Guard and Reserve. It would help
facilitate successful recruitment efforts and, importantly, encourage
continued service in the military by granting a higher education
payment for longer service. It also provides a transferability feature
to allow the serviceman and woman to have the option of transferring
education benefits to their children and spouses. In developing this
legislation, the one theme we heard from almost every veterans'
services organization is the need for such a transferability provision.
As my colleagues know, our proposal is not the only measure that has
been offered to increase GI education benefits, and I want to commend
the efforts of Senators Webb, Hagel, Warner and others on their work to
bring this important issue to the forefront in the Senate, by the
introduction of S. 22. Each of us supports a revitalized GI program.
While I don't think anyone disagrees with the overall intent of S. 22,
I believe we can and should do more to promote recruitment and
retention of servicemen and women and to ensure that veterans and their
families receive the education benefits they deserve, and in a timely
manner. But I remain very hopeful that we can all work together in a
bipartisan manner to ensure that Congress enacts meaningful legislation
that will be signed into law as soon as possible.
Unlike S. 22, our legislation builds on the existing Montgomery GI
Bill educational benefits to ensure rapid implementation. Unlike S. 22,
our bill focuses on the entire spectrum of military members who make up
the All Volunteer Force, from the newest recruit to the career NCOs,
officers, reservists and National Guardsmen, to veterans who have
completed their service and retirees, as well as the families of all of
these individuals.
The legislation would immediately increase education benefits for
active duty personnel from $1100 to $1500 a month. To encourage careers
in the military, the education benefits would increase to $2000 a month
after 12 or more years of service. Further, it would allow
a servicemember to transfer 50 percent of benefits to a spouse or child
starting after 6 years of service, and after 12 years of service, 100
percent may be transferred to a spouse or dependent children. This is a
key pro-retention provision. In addition, our bill would provide $500
annually for college books and supplies while our servicemembers are
going to school.
The bill also would increase from $880 to $1200 per month the
education benefits for Guard and Reserve members called to active duty
since September
[[Page S3514]]
11, 2001. Further, it would gradually increase benefits to $1600 per
month for those members of the Guard and Reserves who serve in the
Selected Reserve for 12 years or more and who continue serving in the
Selected Reserve.
Servicemembers who enlist after they have already received post-
secondary education degrees should also be allowed to benefit under an
improved GI Bill and be allowed to use their education benefits to
repay Federal student loans. Under our bill, servicemembers could use
up to $6,000 per year of Montgomery G.I. Bill education benefits to
repay Federal student loans. And, it doubles from $317 to $634 the
education benefits for other members of the Guard and Reserves.
Our bill also recognizes the sacrifice of all who have served in the
Global War on Terror, including members of the Guard and Reserve who
are serving on active duty and deploying at historic rates by doubling
the educational assistance for members of the Selected Reserve and,
again, making the educational benefits transferable to family members.
Finally, I do think it is important that the Administration's views
on this important issue are taken into account. That is why earlier
this month, Senator Levin and I wrote to the Department of Defense
seeking views on proposals to modernize the GI Bill.
Again, it is my hope that the proponents of the pending veteran's
education benefits measures can join together to ensure that Congress
enacts meaningful legislation that the President will sign. Such
legislation should address the entire spectrum of the All Volunteer
Force. It must be easily understood and implemented and responsive to
the needs not only of veterans, but also of those who are serving in
the active duty forces, the Guard and Reserve, and their families.
Their exemplary service to our nation, and the sacrifice of their
families, deserves no less.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Secretary of Defense,
Washington, DC, April 29, 2008.
Hon. John McCain,
Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: you earlier asked for my views on S.
22. Since your request, two other bills have been introduced
(H.R. 5684 and, in the Senate, the Enhancement of
Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment Through Education
Act of 2008). I welcome the opportunity to outline the
criteria the Department has established to evaluate specific
proposals, with the ultimate objective of strengthening the
All-Volunteer Force, as well as properly recognizing our
veterans' service.
Our first objective is to strengthen the All-Volunteer
force. Accordingly, it is essential to permit transferability
of unused education benefits from service members to family.
This is the highest priority set by the Service Chiefs and
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reflecting the
strong interest from the field and fleet. Transferability
supports military families, thereby enhancing retention.
Second, any enhancement of the education benefit, whether
used in service or after retirement, must serve to enhance
recruiting and not undercut retention.
Third, significant benefit increases need to be focused on
those willing to commit to longer periods of service--hence
the Department's interest in at least six years of service to
be eligible for transferability. Re-enlistments (and longer
service) are critical to the success of the All-Volunteer
Force. Fourth, the program should provide participants with
benefits tailored to their unique situation, thereby
broadening the population from which we retain and recruit.
This includes those whose past educational achievements have
resulted in education debt through student loans, and those
seeking advanced degrees and who may have earned
undergraduate degrees with Department of Defense support.
As you may well appreciate, a key issue is the
determination of the benefit level for the basic GI bill
program. The Department estimates that serious retention
issues could arise if the benefit were expanded beyond the
level sufficient to offset average monthly costs for a public
four-year institution (tuition, room, board, and fees). These
costs are presently estimated at about $1,500 according to
the National Center for Education Statistics. This would
still entail a substantial increase to the present benefit
value of $1,100.
An important corollary to the GI Bill is the recognition
that today, remaining in the military is entirely consistent
with the attainment of education goals. Unlike the past, our
nation now encourages the fulfillment of college aspirations
while serving, thus dealing with readjustment through up
front programs, rather than only after discharge. DoD invests
about $700 million annually to offer funded, education
tuition assistance for our servicemen and women while
serving. More than 400,000 members of the armed forces took
advantage of such tuition assistance last year.
In conclusion, for all these reasons, the Department does
not support S. 22. This legislation does not meet, and, in
some respects, is in direct variance to the Department's
above-stated objectives and supporting criteria.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward
to working closely with the Congress to strengthen the All-
Volunteer force through a balanced program of recruiting,
retention and education benefits, and to recognize the
service of our veterans.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Gates
____________________